Sunday, February 27, 2011


In "Public Unions and the Socialist Utopia", Robert Tracinski has captured the reality of the situation that is going on in Wisconsin and which is bubbling up in all the other states of the Union:
The Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to its very existence.

Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left.

It is a matter of survival for Democrats in an immediate, practical sense. As Michael Barone explains, the government employees' unions are a mechanism for siphoning taxpayer dollars into the campaigns of Democratic politicians.

But there is something deeper here than just favor-selling and vote-buying. There is something that almost amounts to a twisted idealism in the Democrats' crusade. They are fighting, not just to preserve their special privileges, but to preserve a social ideal. Or rather, they are fighting to maintain the illusion that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable.

He goes on to say that, "Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit."

If you doubt the socialist bona fides of these unions, get a load of the union boss, Richard Trumka, who uses Marxist class struggle rhetoric on a daily basis and who apparently speaks on a daily basis to Obama or his higher up minions.

He understands the threat that Scott Walker and fiscally responsible Republicans pose to the socialist utopia. What does he care about where the money to pay for the utopia comes from? The solution in his mind is to just keep taxing the rich and all the dirty capitalists--just squeeze them some more! They are a never-ending source of money and wealth!

What does he care about the source of wealth or how it is created? He just wants his piece of the pie.

What does he care that the money is about to run out? He firmly believes that wealth and money magically grow on trees and that all the trees are in the backyards of the rich. Creating wealth is for suckers. Redistributing (i.e., stealing) wealth is where it's at! That's what social justice is all about, after all.

Trumka and Obama are soulmates. They understand that
...public employment is an idealized socialist economy in miniature, including its political aspect: the grateful recipients of government largesse provide money and organizational support to re-elect the politicians who shower them with all of these benefits.

Put it all together, and you have the Democrats' version of utopia.


Like misbehaving children they scream and demand that reality must go away.
In America, the ideological crisis of the left is taking a slightly different form. Here, the left has set up its utopias by carving out, within a wider capitalist culture, little islands where its ideals hold sway. Old age is one of those islands, where everyone has been promised the socialist dreams of a guaranteed income and unlimited free health care. Public employment is another.

Now the left is panicking as these experiments in American socialism implode.

Because reality won't go away, no matter how much you scream and whine about it.

You can forgive little children who misbehave like this because they still need to be taught that there is a difference between their inner whims and desires and external reality; that "wishing" won't make it so; and that to obtain what they want from the world, they must use whatever skills and talents they happen to be blessed with to create wealth and pursue their own personal happiness. In a free society with the rule of law, they learn to pursue their dreams without violating the rights of others who pursue theirs.

Those who don't learn this lesson--who believe that what is yours was stolen from them; who insist that they own you and that your talents and skills are their means to a perfect society--grow up (or rather, don't grow up) to be leftists. They carefully disguise their desire to steal your wealth and control your life, as well as the parasitic nature of their philosophy, by convincing themselves (and even the people they use and manipulate) that they are loving and compassionate; that they only want to "help" you for your own good and that of the "greater" good.

The social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations--expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity--are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures.

Indeed, both they and the capitalist entrepreneurs, the creators of wealth who they despise so vehemently, are both driven by the darker side of human nature and the corresponding emotions: envy, greed and a need to dominate others.

But, there remains an extremely crucial difference between the two.

The do-gooder leftist in all the various ideological incarnations--the "fleebagger" Democrats; the Trumka union bosses; the angry public employees; the antiwar crowds, the environmental fanatics; all the communists, socialists, and assorted collectivists running around in America; as well as any from either side of the political spectrum who seek to impose their beliefs on others--all offer the rationale that he does what he does for the "common good" and for "social justice", "peace" and "brotherhood". His high-minded, self-righteous rhetoric justifies (to him anyway) imposing his will and beliefs on others for their own good; and he will not hesitate to use whatever coercive capablity he has at hand to get others to do what he wants and what he says.

The capitalist, on the other hand, is overtly out to pursue his own selfish profit, and understands that in a free society he must use persuasion. That is, he must convince people that his ideas and the products of his mind are better than all the rest so that they will be willing to part with their hard-earned money to possess them. His desire for power over others is manifested in an indirect manner because people must wnat what he has to offer and believe that they will benefit from an interaction with him. If they do not have this belief, they will walk away--at least if they live where there is freedom.

There is no parallel social limitations on the behavior of the do-gooder leftist.

This tyrant wannabe does not feel the need to convince others of the veracity or even the effectiveness of his ideas; nor does he accept defeat when others are not interested or resist their implementation. He believes he does not have to ever face reality. Reality is for losers! He knows in his heart what is best for everyone, and he is very willing to use coercion and force if necessary. He will not allow options when he is in the majority; but demands them when he is not; either way, it is his way or the highway. He cannot permit others do do what they think is right for themselves; he must be the one to decide what is right. Other people's feelings or concerns are a matter of complete indifference to him. Only his own matter.

The leftist's desire for power is direct and absolute; and this is a direct consequence of his utopian ideology that drives him. Always a child, but no longer an innocent one, he truly believes that his whims are all that matter in the world. He wants what he wants and reality be damned.

There is no area of your life which will escape his intrusive psychopathology, because he justifies it by saying he is really doing it for your sake.

The clever leftist always manages to hide these darker motivations--the envy, greed, and desire for power--and pretend they don't even exist--even to himself. He tells himself he does not possess such dark motives; that his motives are pure and uncontaminated by the kind of self-serving goals the selfish capitalists pursue. He tells himself that the "greed" of others is to blame for his plight; never his own. He tells himself that it is others who are "selfish", never him. He does what he does "for the children" and some undefined "greater good."

The banal platitudes and silly slogans he chants during his protest marches make him feel oh so good about himself and demonize those who he believes are stealing his rightful piece of the pie. Experiencing too much knowledge and insight about his inner state would make him extremely uncomfortable; perhaps even causing him to question some of his basic assumptions about himself or his beliefs.

This is the essence of the "dilemma of the utopians". They see themselves as so pure and righteous; so correct and virtuous; how is it possible that their beautiful utopian dreams always turn into such horrible human nightmares?

You can then count on the true leftist believer to close his eyes not only to his own internal reality, but also to the external reality that proves the uselessness of his beliefs in the real world. Few on the left have ever acknowledged the nightmare of the Soviet gulag; or Lenin's purges; or China's crackdowns. Few have ever even accepted the incredible human cost their ideologies have taken on humanity; the death the suffering and misery, the abject poverty.

Is it any surprise that the unions think the gravy train can continue indefinitely without consequences? Or, that the money to fuel their whims and utopian fantasies is limitless ?

As long as you believe all the Marxist class warfare BS and rant about the evil capitalists and their "exploitation" and "oppression"; or say you are only taking control of everyone's lives for the sake of "social justice" then everything will always be hunky dory.

When you consider the historical --and catastrophic -- human consequences that have ensued whenever their perfect utopias are implemented, it is little wonder that they will ignore, deny and distort any information that exposes the underlying envy and rage that drive their sociopathic selflessness. Their precious self-esteem would surely plummet, and their self-esteem must be preserved at all costs.

While societies that operate under the rule of law have all the necessary checks and balances that prevent the capitalist from cheating or robbing his clients and hold him to account if he does; civilization has been fooled repeatedly throughout history by the virtuous, self-righteous, anti-capitalist looters of the left who simply disguise their robbery and fraud behind the stated purity of their motives.

Coming soon to the state where you reside: A NEW SOCIALIST UTOPIA !

[Political cartoons by Steve Breen]

Thursday, February 24, 2011


Part of my job is dealing with chemical addictions and the addicts who have them. One definition of chemical dependency that I particularly like and have seen validated over and over again is this: "Chemical dependency is essentially a committed pathological love relationship to a mood altering chemical substance."

This reality is sometimes hard to believe, especially when you regularly observe the chaotic mess most of the lives of addicts are. Especially the chronically homeless (because of drugs); the chronically penniless (because of drugs); the chronically friendless and isolated (except for other addicts); and the chronically angry and paranoid (because of drugs). But, if you ask an addict why he takes drugs, he is very likely to tell that he likes or enjoys them.

From a review of the book linked above:

The McAuliffes conclude that chemical dependency is a disease. Some would say it is a choice, but choice does not apply to the addict. It applies only before addiction. Once the love commitment is made, reason and choice are not available. The shift is made to emotional compulsion. The addict is now in the grip of an emotional commitment that warps reason and restricts freedom of choice. A rigid defense system is also produced, warding off any interference with the addict's behavior. And the seal is set to the situation by delusion. The addict's perception of reality is distorted, which further impairs his reason and judgment. If these elements were mildly present in a love relationship between a man and a woman, it would be normal, even comical. But in a love relationship to a chemical it is disastrous, producing a debilitating downward spiral, toward both personal and social disorder and destruction.
The only thing I disagree with in the above is the comment that, "choice does not apply to the addict." On the contrary, as long as the addict is human, choice always applies; especially before addiction, but also every time an addict is effectively "detoxed", i.e., successfully weaned from the physiological effects of his or her particular chemical of choice. It is at that point that they can start anew both biologically and psychologically.

The problem is getting them to commit to the weaning and the long process of staying away from the substance they KNOW will destroy their life. It is the opening in which therapists attempt to convince the addict that they can have a life worth living without this destructive and toxic relationship.

Meanwhile, the addiction that they cling to also happens to bring disorder and destruction to everyone around them. Family and friends are often all too aware that the addict's perception of reality as well as his judgment is markedly impaired.

Some people are addictd to alcohol; some to heroin, cocaine and other opiates; some to amphetamines and hallucinogenics. Then you get onto the psychological addictions like gambling; or sex or porn.

Without minimizing all these very real societal problems, I submit that an even greater number of people in our society are addicted to spending other people's money.

Their love of and dependence on your money is extremely strong. They feel they cannot live without it; and they will fight to keep on getting it--even behaving in ways that are deplorable and socially reprehensible. Like the biological addicts, they are willing to lie, cheat and do violence in order to remain in this committed and pathological relationship with your money. And, in addition, they have the delusional belief that they are entitled to it without question, without possibility of alteration for forever. Are you broke? Too bad. They are entitled to continue to get it.

Withdrawal or even detoxification efforts (gradual changes) are met with anger and rage and increasingly unreasonable demands and threats. Having had free access to your money for so long time, their perception of reality is distorted; their judgment is impaired. They can no longer see what is happening in the world around them and attempts to make them understand how their behavior is impacting the rest of the social network is met with utter and complete psychological denial.

Lately, we have been witnessing the rage of these addicts on a daily basis on our TV sets and even perhaps in our communities.

And just like those who are chemically dependent, this type of addict has its enablers.

In psychiatry--and particularly addiction medicine--we talk about people who "enable" addicts. Enabling refers to any behavior or action that assists the addict in the continuation of their addiction.

Enabling can be either intentional or unintentional, but enabling behavior allows the addict to continue their destructive behavior. An example of enabling behavior with an alcoholic, for example, is someone who, although they verbally disapprove of their spouse/friend's drinking, repeatedly will go out and purchases alcohol for him/her.

Frequently enablers tell psychiatrists that they "only want to help" or that they are "afraid" of what will happen to them if they don't do the things that help the addict (e.g., the addict will beat them up or make their lives difficult in some way).

Thus you can find enablers who "call in sick" for their addict; even doctors who write addicts notes for work.

You find enablers who will not confront the behavior of the addict and its consequences; or those who even accept blame for the addict's behavior.

Often, out of compassion, people will give addicts "one more chance" which evolves into another, then another and another; gradually distancing the addict from taking responsibility for his or her behavior. It should be obvious that, rather than "helping" the addict, they actually makee it easier for him to get worse; escalate his behavior and to feel even more entitled.

Some people (or political parties) like to hang around addicts because they know they can easily take advantage of, or manipulate people whose sense of entitlement is stroked and whose judgment is distorted. These sick relationships serve the psychopathology of both the enabler and the addict.

Whatever the motivation of the enabler, they will always "help" the addict to avoid responsibility for their destructive behavior. ,

Am I making my point? This is what the Democrats and allthose who have sucked up to the out-of-control public labor unions have been doing for years.

The absolute denial of fiscal reality is the hallmark of both the person addicted to the taxpayers' money and the groups that enable them.

But the process of detox and withdrawal must begin. These people are not slaves. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can find jobs elsewhere, just like the rest of us. They are not entitled to taxpayer money in perpetuity and if the taxpayers want to renegotiate the terms of their employment because the taxpayer is going broke, then it is time for them to face a little reality.

Deciding to stop addiction and a dysfunctional relationship is a tough choice. It can be very uncomfortable and even painful for a while. But, it is a process of slowly waking up to reality and accepting responsibility for one's own life.


Here's a random thought--take Libya off the UN Human Rights Council! What a novel concept!:
On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, to attend the opening of the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Her objective: try to coordinate efforts with other nations to address the situation in Libya.

But at the Human Rights Council, Libya is more than a topic of discussion — it’s a member. Moammar Gaddafi’s tyrannical regime was elected to a council seat last May with the support of 155 of the 192 U.N. member states.

Libya’s membership on the council stands as sad tribute to the utter lack of seriousness that elections for membership on the U.N.’s premier human-rights body receive from the member states. Other members in good standing include noted human-rights abusers such as China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, now experiencing unrest of its own, is also a member. These nations have used their position to repeatedly undermine the council’s stated agenda.

Clinton and Obama's sad deference to these so-called "human rights" groups only encourage the continuing insanity and the underlying anti-freedom, anti-human rights agendas that such bodies have. Just ask yourself what sort of "human rights" a council will be advocating for with members from Libya, China, Cuba et al?

This is just another example of how dedicated the political left is to merely looking and sounding good, without actually having to have any real honesty, integrity or character. The term morally bankrupt is the short description for these pathetic groups and their enablers on the left. As I noted in that 2005 post (and it holds true even more today):
At this very moment, every issue supported by the Left, and almost all of the behavior exhibited by the Left is completely antithetical to classical liberal philosophies. There is no longer a commitment to personal liberty or to freedom. The Left is far too busy to promote freedom for the common man or woman, because their time is taken up advocating freedom for tyrants who oppress the common man; terrorists who kill the common man; and religious fanatics who subjugate the common woman.

The intellectuals who once promoted the IDEA of freedom, now are ensnared in an IDEOLOGY that depends for its very existence on the silencing of speech; the suppression of ideas; and the persecution of those who dare to refute its tenets.

Patriotism and love of one’s country is mocked by those who once fought to bring the American Dream to all American citizens; and who once championed those who were prevented from sharing in that Dream. Slowly and inexorably those idealists who once shouted, “we shall overcome,” morphed into a toxic culture promoting a never-ending victimhood that cannot possibly be overcome. Love of American ideals and values was transformed into the most perverse and vile anti-Americanism –where all things originating or “tainted” as American are uniquely bad; and where America became the source of all evil in the world.

The classical liberal tradition is now almost exclusively upheld by what are called “conservatives”. Once “liberal” was synonymous with the “left”. No longer.

What we have witnessed over the 30- 45 years since the Left ascended to dominate political thought in the mid 20th century, is its rapid and unprecedented decline into wholesale intellectual and moral bankruptcy. The noble values and ideals they once stood for have been abandoned; and almost as if a surreal cosmic joke was being played on them, they have—without even noticing!-- embraced the exact opposite of what they once stood for.

Now we have the shrill and ever-so-compassionate, postmodern "progressive" agenda, of which Obama and Clinton are prime examples. Neither is morally capable of dealing with the evil in today's world; they can barely bother to even mention it by name, let alone condemn it, except in the vaguest and mildest manner.

By way of contrast to this rather despicable approach to dealing with the world, here is Ambassador John Bolton's views on how to bring real freedom and democracy to the Middle East (Bolton IMHO really ought to be considered a presidential or vice-presidential candidate by the Republicans in 2012) (h/t The Corner):
Today's world is filled with failed efforts at democratisation. Russia has passed from totalitarianism, into democracy, and now seems to be passing right out again, regressing to authoritarianism or worse, although seemingly not of the communist variety. Lebanon's Cedar Revolution has been hijacked by Hizbollah, the Shi'ite terrorist group armed and financed by Iran. And in Gaza, Hamas, albeit Sunni, is similarly armed and financed by Iran. In short, the forms and processes of democracy can produce substantively decidedly illiberal results, as Mussolini's Fascisti and Hitler's Brown Shirts should have amply warned us in the last century.

Moreover, beyond the issue of Egypt's future government, broader US national security interests have legitimate — and enormous — claims. Americans may admire Woodrow Wilson's aspirations to make the world safe for democracy, but they actually follow Theodore Roosevelt's devastating response: "First and foremost, we are to make the world safe for ourselves." Attention to US strategic interests is not evidence of indifference to democracy, but a recognition that America's democracy itself requires its leaders to do what nation states exist to do, and as its Constitution specifically admonishes, to "provide for the common defence"
Moreover, beyond the issue of Egypt's future government, broader US national security interests have legitimate — and enormous — claims. Americans may admire Woodrow Wilson's aspirations to make the world safe for democracy, but they actually follow Theodore Roosevelt's devastating response: "First and foremost, we are to make the world safe for ourselves." Attention to US strategic interests is not evidence of indifference to democracy, but a recognition that America's democracy itself requires its leaders to do what nation states exist to do, and as its Constitution specifically admonishes, to "provide for the common defence".

Ironically, once Egyptian demonstrators verged on toppling Mubarak, the Obama Administration suddenly found virtue in demonstrations in Iran, with ringing statements by Vice-President Biden and others. By contrast, after Iran's fraudulent 2009 presidential election, the White House had been silent or even supportive of Ahmadinejad's election "victory", so desperate was it to engage Tehran in negotiations over its nuclear weapons program. Obama's sustained unwillingness to acknowledge, let alone endorse, the protesters in Iran against their totalitarian, theocratic military rulers provoked enormous criticism, which obviously stung the hyper-media-conscious White House. But while being rhetorically ahead of the media spin cycle is a mark of success at the Obama White House, as in so many other cases, rhetoric is all there is. Mistaking rhetoric for action is the Obama Administration's hallmark.

Read it all because it is very practical and extremely interesting. Andrew McCarthy sees it as a "real democracy project"; and adds a few points which I also like:
I think that would invite a hard-headed inquiry into the question whether promoting Western liberty (assuming for argument’s sake that it would eventually take hold in the Muslim world) would actually (a) make us safer from jihadist terror, and (b) undermine the broader, stealthier “civilizational jihad” being waged against us by the Muslim Brotherhood and its partner Islamist organizations. It would also call for consideration of a question of national concern that the nation never got to debate: Under what conditions, if any, should we deploy our military for the principal purpose of democracy promotion in Islamic countries? And it would invite the long overdue examination of the question whether you can promote authentic democratic culture in countries that insist on establishing Islam as the state religion and installing sharia as a principal source of law.

As I have noted previously, it is a case of rhetoric vs reality. The real question is, do we support liberty, democracy and human rights in reality? Or, do we just give lip-service to these ideas; even as all our actions in the real world encourage and enable dictators, tyrants, and the anti-freedom agendas of secular and religious thugs?

UPDATE: From Allahpundit at Hot Air:
You might think this would be the easiest of easy calls, but when you populate an ostensibly neutral international body with self-interested governments — many of them as ruthless and cretinous as Qaddafi’s — you’re bound to get perverse results. Why would China, say, take a stand for human rights in Libya when it’s cracking heads back home? In practice, these moronic UN agencies do more for fascist regimes by providing them with a little moral legitimacy by association than they do for dissidents trying to survive under those regimes.
Which is precisely why you should be root-root-rooting hard tomorrow for this loathsome body to give Qaddafi a complete and total pass. Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who take the UN’s “human rights” apparatus seriously. A great good many of them will have their minds changed if, after a week of headlines about Libyan protesters being killed with heavy weaponry, the HRC punts. If Qaddafi’s going down in Tripoli, here’s hoping he takes this ridiculous outfit with him.

Yes, let's hope for that, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

Plain and simple here: If the Council can’t pass a draft tomorrow that condemns Qaddafi’s regime specifically for the killing — not “we regret the killings in Libya” or whatever, but Mad Dog Must Stop — the U.S. should resign on the spot. There’s no earthly reason to remain. At best we’re tarnished by the continuing association, at worst we’re willfully enabling scum like the Castro brothers by legitimizing this stupid “human rights” credential they have. If the HRC can’t act here, it’s effectively defunct. Walk away.

Run away...but sadly, that would not be the hopeychangey priority. And that I would bet on.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011


James Lewis sees the President of the US retreating as the President of Iran advances:
[Obama] is now stopping the United States from being the good cop to keep the peace in the Middle East. Pax Americana is in retreat, step by step, and truly barbaric regimes are rearing their ugly heads all the way from Myanmar to the tip of South America. This administration is either grossly incompetent in foreign affairs, or it is genuinely self-destructive; it doesn't matter which. In the case of the mob-staged coup d'etat against Mubarak, Obama seemed more malevolent than ignorant, but the result is still the same. Egypt's reactionary Muslim Brotherhood is even now picking up all the chips Obama has lost in the latest farce. In Tahrir Square the new Ayatollah Khomeini of Egypt just came back from exile and addressed a million shouting supporters. Google's little twitter mobber Ghonim was kept off the stage. Only the US press was assaulted. The next time will be worse.

We are witnessing an exact copy of Jimmy Carter's abandonment of a pro-Western and fairly enlightened Iran in 1979. Carter allowed the first radical Islamist power to consolidate in the Middle East; more than a million people died in the war that followed. Jimmy still maintains his innocence, just as he's telling us now there's nothing to fear from the Muslim Bros, in spite of their famous five Rules for Islamic Radicals. They make Alinsky look like a guppy next to a Great White shark.

Obama has now pushing our thirty-year ally Hosni Mubarak out of power, letting the biggest country in the Middle East be radicalized. Meanwhile Turkey has fallen to another offshoot the Muslim Brotherhood. Gaza is under the thumb of Hamas after Israel gave in to US pressure to retreat, Lebanon is now run by Hezbollah, and Syria is allied with Ahmadinejad. No wonder all the bad guys are celebrating.

Every time Obama retreats, Ahmadinejad advances, step by step, like a chess master playing against a panicked rookie. You can see checkmate coming way ahead of time.

The upshot of all this appeasement, in Lewis' says, is "...the biggest Western gamble since the Hitler appeasement policy of the 1930s. I don't know where the first major aggression will explode, but we are inviting attack on multiple fronts."

Meanwhile, two Iranian warships are today making their way through the Suez, with the express permission of the new regime in Egypt. The ships are purportedly making their way to Syria for a "training mission."

Conveniently (for Iran anyway), they will be passing by the shores of Israel on their voyage. The U.S. is going to follow the situation, "...with some curiosity."


Amazingly, after two years of Obama touting America's weakness and moral inferiority, the thugs of the world think they can get away with just about anything.

Meanwhile, Obama's attention is focused like a laser on the unions in Wisconsin.

Yes, indeed. We are in the best of hands.

Sunday, February 20, 2011


Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes:
'Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." So goes the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What's extraordinary about this maxim is the succinct way that it captures the political dimension of Islam. Even more extraordinary is the capacity of these five pillars of faith to attract true believers. But the most remarkable thing of all is the way the Brotherhood's motto seduces Western liberals.

Hirsi Ali fears, as do I, that the end result of the Egyptian experiment with real democracy will end badly if the Muslim Brotherhood pushes its way to power (and it looks like it probably will, unfortunately).

On my last post, Geoffrey Britain poses a relevant concern in the comments regarding my conviction that both the leftists who are currently pretending that government spending and entitlements can go on forever at increasingly astronomical rates; as well as the Islamic Muslim Brotherhood are both going to get a shock when reality hits them in the face:
Unions that assume that their 'entitlements' will go on forever are in for a shock.

However, I for one am not clear on what factor would lead to the Muslim Brotherhood experiencing any shock whatsoever... If the Muslim Brotherhood’s "internationally influential spiritual director Sheik Qaradawi" does 'preach' in Cairo’s Tahrir Square for the Friday prayer service tomorrow, it's a very bad sign indeed. A fairly clear indication that the military will not stand in the way of the Brotherhood's rise to power.

I have been thinking about his point for the last few days, and it deserves a response. As he suggests, it is pretty clear that entitlements of the financial variety cannot go on forever. At some point, as they say, you run out of other people's money and hit the brick wall of reality.

But, I also think that there is another sort of 'entitlement' that cannot go on forever, and that is the kind of narcissistic entitlement and grandiosity that is always present in those individuals and the brotherhoods they form, who desperately quest for power over other people.

The central question of our time is: Will groups that desire power over the lives of others--no matter whether they are religious or secular--at some point find themselves hitting a brick wall of reality? Is human liberty inevitable? Or, are we humans always doomed to live short, brutish lives under the heel of some dictator or thug; or some group who wants to impose sharia or its secular equivalent over our lives--for our own good?

In contrast to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rami G. Khouri of the Daily Star>,an English language Lebanese news outlet, writes that the issue of whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood are involved in the process going on in Egypt misses the point. He thinks that what is happening, no matter what the outcome, is a key turning point for self-determination in the Arab world:
To appreciate what is taking place in the Arab world today you have to grasp the historical significance of the events that have started changing rulers and regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, with others sure to follow. What we are witnessing is the unraveling of the post-colonial order that the British and French created in the Arab world in the 1920s and 1930s and then sustained – with American and Soviet assistance – for most of the last half-century.

It is fascinating, if insular, to focus attention, as much Western media are doing, on whether Facebook drove these revolts; or to ask what will happen if the Muslim Brotherhood plays a role in any new Egyptian government. The Arabs are like a bride emerging on her wedding day to face people commenting on whether her shoes match her gloves, when the real issue is how beautiful and happy she is.

The events unfolding before our eyes in Egypt, after Tunisia, are the third most important historical development in the Arab region in the past century, and to miss that point is to perpetuate a tradition of Western Orientalist romanticism and racism that have been a large cause of our pain for all these years. This is the most important of the three major historical markers because it is the first one that marks a process of genuine self-determination by Arab citizens who can speak and act for themselves for the first time in their modern history.

To get some perspective on this point, we need to turn back the clock a bit to 2005, and remember how Faoud Adjami wrote that President George W. Bush had unleased a tsunami on the Middle East with his Freedom Agenda?
To venture into the Arab world, as I did recently over four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq, is to travel into Bush Country. I was to encounter people from practically all Arab lands, to listen in on a great debate about the possibility of freedom and liberty. I met Lebanese giddy with the Cedar Revolution that liberated their country from the Syrian prison that had seemed an unalterable curse. They were under no illusions about the change that had come their way. They knew that this new history was the gift of an American president who had put the Syrian rulers on notice. The speed with which Syria quit Lebanon was astonishing, a race to the border to forestall an American strike that the regime could not discount. I met Syrians in the know who admitted that the fear of American power, and the example of American forces flushing Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, now drive Syrian policy. They hang on George Bush's words in Damascus, I was told: the rulers wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future.

The weight of American power, historically on the side of the dominant order, now drives this new quest among the Arabs. For decades, the intellectual classes in the Arab world bemoaned the indifference of American power to the cause of their liberty. Now a conservative American president had come bearing the gift of Wilsonian redemption. For a quarter century the Pax Americana had sustained the autocracy of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: He had posed as America's man on the Nile, a bulwark against the Islamists. He was sly and cunning, running afoul of our purposes in Iraq and over Israeli-Palestinian matters. He had nurtured a culture of antimodernism and anti-Americanism, and had gotten away with it. Now the wind from Washington brought tidings: America had wearied of Mr. Mubarak, and was willing to bet on an open political process, with all its attendant risks and possibilities. The brave oppositional movement in Cairo that stepped forth under the banner of Kifaya ("Enough!") wanted the end of his reign: It had had enough of his mediocrity, enough of the despotism of an aging officer who had risen out of the military bureaucracy to entertain dynastic dreams of succession for his son. Egyptians challenging the quiescence of an old land may have had no kind words to say about America in the past. But they were sure that the play between them and the regime was unfolding under Mr. Bush's eyes.

What is happening now in the Middle East is part of an ongoing process that started some years back. Like all change, it is painful, messy, and frightening--and not only to those who are in the middle of it, but to those who are observing from a distance. What will happen ultimately in those countries in the short term may not be pretty; but one thing can be said from an historical perspective: slowly but surely, the people of the Middle East are lurching toward freedom.

There is a lot of reason to fear the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power in a region where the thugs of Hamas and Hezbollah have taken control; and where the dictators of Iran spread so much evil. It would be easy to be pessimistic and think that this part of the world is forever doomed to suffer under an Islamic caliphate dominated by sharia law; led by dysfunctional and hate-filled leaders who desire to either kill or enslave all others until the people around the entire globe have had liberty and individuality forcibly stripped from their grasp. The sadists and narcissists who run the Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Libya etc jsutify their desire for power by saying it is the will of some bestial and primitive god who desires human submission or he will bring death and destruction.

This mutation of Islam was predictable from its beginnings and it has come to represent the perfect antithesis of the wave of freedom and self-determination that swept the Western world. The question is which of these movements is more in touch with reality, particularly the reality of human nature? Are freedom and indivudal liberty; self-determination and the rights of man just fantasies or utopian drams?

I say they are not. I say that the utopianism is all on the side of those who want to subjugate human nature and chain the mind of man to some impossible ideal. Islam is rising in the 21st century in the same way that all the destructive utopian fantasies of the 20th century did.

And it will end--perhaps not today or even in my own lifetime--with the triumph of liberty.

President Bush's Freedom Agenda was based on a very simple notion: that around the world all men and women share the desire for liberty. Our own Founding Fathers, who were far ahead of their own time, declared that this was not merely a whimsical human aspiration but a Natural Right. Through many generations now, those who are blessed to live in America have consistently fought for that right, at home and abroad. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an idea that took material form in the real world when our wonderful country was created by these far-seeing men.

The Arab World has not yet had its Washingtons or Jeffersons or Lincolns or Reagans. There are forces at work in that part of the world who would like to make sure that such men never are born. That is why they are desperate to control the minds of their people.

After 9/11, President Bush strongly believed that bringing freedom and self-determination to the wretched countries dominated by Islamic fundamentalism was a good idea to fight the terrorists and extremists; and it was also in keeping with our own national interest and highest values.

What all these anti-freedom, anti-life, anti-mind utopian ideologies share is the fantasy that human beings are perfectable. They cannot tolerate individual differences in thinking and hope to create an all-powerful State composed of "ideal" man who all think and behave exactly the same, Allah willing.

But let's think about how such ideas fantasies conform to the real world and the reality of human nature.

Remember the Swedish parents who were going to raise their child "genderless" so as to give him/her/it a "choice" what sex he/she/it wants to be at some future date?

Or, remember Kim Jong Il's diet of "pine needle tea" prescribed for his starving nation?

As I have said many times before on this blog, when it comes to understanding the reality of human nature, socialism, communism, and in this case, Islamism, all get failing Marx marks. They all resort to generating these biological fantasies; justify the implementation of their power over others as "God's will" or, even better, camoflage their desires by touting how "reality-based" or "progressive" they are--as if by touting their supposed connection with reality,, they can make-believe their ideology has a place in the real world.

But they are wrong. So very wrong because they refuse to look at the violence, death and human suffering they leave in their ideological wake. I am not talking about normal human suffering that occurs everywhere all the time because human beings are far from perfect and do bad things to each other even when they have freedom and civilization. No, I am talking human suffering and death on a scale that before the 10th century was unimaginable.

The ideologies that lead to such poverty, misery and death are truly evil; and the face of evil constantly renews itself in every day and age. Yet, evil's in whatever ideology it wears always has the same ultimate goal remains the same: a world that is anti-mind, anti-life, and anti-reality.

The parents who wish to deny the biological reality of their child; the dictator who pretends that people can live on pine needle tea; the protesters who refuse to acknowledge that their entitlements cannot go on forever; or the Islamic fanatics who are so sexually repressed and frightened of the sexuality of women that they force women to walk around in shapeless sacks are cut from the same cloth: THEY WILL DEFY REALITY FOR AS LONG AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN.

Denial of reality can work for a time, but sooner or later it will destroy the individual; the group; the society; or the nation Someone should tell them it has been tried many times before, and by much smarter engaging in it. In the long run it won't work. It cannot work. It has NEVER worked.

But the denialists will keep on trying to deny reality no matter what the cost to those around them. Their narcissism and psychopathy demands it.

The latest crop of tyrants in the Middle East may give way only to a new crop; but their reign will not last either. They will be able to survive for a while on the money they never earned and which, if they ever come to rule the world, they will not be able to produce. Without oil, the entire Middle East would have remained a backwater of abject human misery and suffering. Islam, which may have started out so well back in the good old medieval days when even was pretty competitive with the West will also run out of other people's wealth to spread their evil.

And then their supposedly god-given "entitlement" to rule over our lives will eventually face a brick wall of reality. I'm not saying when, only that it will because the lurch toward freedom will continue.

Because the [imperfect] human spirit can never be completely crushed. That spirit is born fresh and new in every single human being at birth. And so, even after centuries of misery; after centuries of trying to squash out that spirit in every single child, even those in the Middle East are rising to demand their freedom.

Yes, perhaps only some of those rising are real examples of the indomintable human spirit's desire for freedom and self-determination; yes, perhaps many are just part of the clone army of collectivist jihadis; and yes, perhaps they may win this round (or not), but sooner or later, the human spirit will rise again....

Because that is our nature.

The desire to be free to live our own lives and pursue our own happiness is as real as anything about the human species. The westward expansion of humanity over the millenia is a testament to the intensity of that desire and will. Always have our ancestors made the trek westward, pursuing the freedom to live as they choose.

America, Reagan's shining city on a hill, is the most recent destination; the most westward; but this journey was never about geography really. It has always been about the human mind and its need to grow and explore and to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield; to reshape the external world and create wealth and beauty where none was before. It little profits an idle king; nor does it profit an ordinary man--anyone who wants to live life to the lees; has a hungry heart; and yearns in desire to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought....

There is a reason our species admires heroes; and within each and every flawed human being; male or female, tall or short,young or old, Christian, Jew or Muslim; there is a potential for the heroic.

It is never too late to seek a newer world; to escape any bonds of oppression and tyranny; and to build another shining city on a hill. In fact, I believe it is human destiny.

And that is the brick wall of reality that the Muslim Brotherhood and any group or individual who seeks to control the human mind will eventually run smack dab into.

by Alfred Lord Tennyson

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: all times I have enjoy'd
Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades [1]
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments, [2]
Myself not least, but honour'd of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end, [3]
To rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!
As tho' to breathe were life. Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge, like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

This is my son, mine own Telemachus, [4]
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle--
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.
There lies the port: the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil'd and wrought, and thought with me--
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads--you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all; but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles, [5]
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Thursday, February 17, 2011


First, from Nina Shea:
Muslim Brotherhood’s Qaradawi to Preach in Tahrir Square on Friday
In a move eerily reminiscent of Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran after the 1979 revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood’s internationally influential spiritual director Sheik Qaradawi plans to return to Egypt and preach in Cairo’s Tahrir Square for the Friday prayer service tomorrow. Qaradawi is banned from the U.S. He lives in Qatar, where he has a weekly al-Jazeera television broadcast on sharia. He is infamous for calling on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons “to terrorize their enemies,” issuing fatwas stating that “blows are not effective with every woman, but they are helpful with some,” and asserting “the right of Palestinian women to blow themselves up.”

Next, from Jim Hoft, we have a story that [in addition to the silly "Assault on Women" ad from that I alluded to in this post] shows our fiscally deluded President using amazingly similar language to describe what's going on in Wisconsin:
“Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions,” President Obama told TMJ4 in Milwaukee.

An "assault on women" and an "assault on unions"?? Don't we deserve better from the President of the United States and his party (who have apparently skipped town and state in order to avoid having to vote on the Wisconsin issue). This is pathetic.
Where are the grown-ups in the Democratic party?

In Egypt they demonstrated and hoped for freedom; they are more likely to get sharia and the Muslim Brotherhood. In Madison they are angrily demonstrating for entitlements, more government, more debt for the State and its citizens.

In both cases, freedom and individual liberty are the issues at stake. Can this nation--or any nation--long endure the combination of religious and/or secular thuggery and desire for power over others that masquerades sometimes as the outraged and aggressive victimhood mentality of the entitlement crowds?

Both of these events describe how the politically deluded intend to bend reality to their whim.

I have it on good authority, however, that reality does not intend to listen--at least for very long. The Muslim Brotherhood may indeed achieve the power they lust after in the near future; just as the unions can pretend that their entitlements will go on forever. Both are in for a shock.

We are in for a very wild ride, both here and abroad for the next few months....


June is approaching, and it seems that reality is bustin' out all over. Wretchard writes about the psychological change that may be upon us:
The Berkeley City Council, after passing a resolution calling for the resettlement of detainees released from Guantanamo in the United States, voted against inviting such persons to live in their fair city, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Earlier, an organization called “Move America Forward, proposed in a statement that Berkeley City Council members ‘go live in GITMO where they can hang out with hundreds of terrorists.’ The group said it would pay for their air fare.”

Meanwhile, Nir Rosen, who scoffed at Lara Logan’s assault in Tahrir Square, was fired from his position as fellow at the NYU’s Center on Law and Security. Jim Geraghty at the National Review says he never thought to see the day, but is glad the Center on Law and Security did it anyway....

Why the outbreak of reason? A succession of recent events, from the financial crisis to the wave of unrest sweeping the Middle East, has created a new sense of mortality in everyone. Dick Morris, in an article titled “The Damage Obama Has Done,” presents a table, which while not entirely the best source for identifying the various factors which went into causing the change, nevertheless gets the point across: reality hurts. For all its shortcomings, Morris’ table best explains our new psychological world.

Things look different to frightened, 60 something year old people facing an uncertain future than to 18 year olds at Yasgur’s farm on their way to Paradise. The idea of actual terrorists living down the block from the drugstore and the idea that a newspaperwoman can be raped like an animal being eaten alive by wolves terrify them.

Add to this the specter of European leaders unanimous in their opinion that the left's multicultural vision has failed them and you have the perfect recipe for some belated insight.

It is the sort of insight one achieves in a near-death scenario, unfortunately; and to make the most of the new awareness, the first step in not to die. Wretchard thinks that those who still "haven't caught on, soon will"; but I am not as optimisitc.

This evening I watched two leftist women from Planned Parenthood on O'Reilly justify the bizarre ad staring Cuddy from House, M.D., which is insisting that the Republican party has "launched an all out assault on women’s health". The women debating O'Reilly refused to consider any of the economic factors that might justify cutting off Federal funds for abortion, even as they fiercely rejected any other possible way that abortions might be funded for those who desire them. O'Reilly offered several reasonable suggestions, none of which seemed to penetrate the thick ideological skulls of the pro-abortion women he was interviewing/debating. For them, abortion without the money from the Federal government was simply an "assault on women's health."

Next, there is the incredible obtuseness of President Obama in bringing forth a budget so out of touch with reality that even members of his own party appear to be stunned. Yet he threatens to veto any spending cuts they might come up with in Congress and generally behaves as if he can avoid dealing with reality forever. But, the reality is that It's Tuesday in America right now.

Then there is this depressing news about how multiculturalist ferver is alive and well--in the U.S. Military:
They came at a fitting moment, just as Americans had been handed a report providing the fullest disclosures so far about the multiculturalist zeal that had driven Army and medical school superiors to smooth Nidal Malik Hasan's rocky way through training, promote him, and, despite blatant evidence of his unfitness, raise not a single concern. Maj. Hasan, U.S. Army psychiatrist, would be assigned to Fort Hood where, in November 2009, he opened fire, killing 12 fellow soldiers and a civilian employee, and wounding 32 others.

In this report, titled "A Ticking Time Bomb" and put out by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, there is a detail as dazzling in its bleak way as all the glowing misrepresentations of Dr. Hasan's skills and character, which his superiors poured into their evaluations of him. It concerns the Department of Defense's official report on the Fort Hood killings—a study whose recital of fact made no mention of Hasan's well-documented jihadist sympathies. Subsequent DoD memoranda portray the bloodbath—which began with Hasan shouting "Allahu Akbar!"—as a kind of undefined extremism, something on the order, perhaps, of work-place violence.

This avoidance of specifics was apparently contagious—or, more precisely, policy. In November 2010, each branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood shooting. Not one mentioned the perpetrator's ties to radical Islam. Even today, "A Ticking Time Bomb," co-authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine), reminds us that DoD still hasn't specifically named the threat represented by the Fort Hood attack—a signal to the entire Defense bureaucracy that the subject is taboo.

The time bomb exploded, of course, when Hasan went on his Islamic killing spree; just as the decades-old time bomb of Islamic cultural and institutionalized hatred of Jews and of women exploded in a telling moment in Egypt.

I will only mention in passing the clueless Clapper of "largely secular" fame. The idea that Obama's top man for national intelligence is a moron is too painful to dwell on for more than a nanosecond.

I could go on, case after case of total and complete psychological denial of current economic reality; of the reality that Islam is not a religion of peace; of any reality that counters the left's carefully constructed bubble.... I imagine that you can understand my lack of optimism about being optimistic.

Perhaps the "common" folk are finally having their reality moment, since as Wretchard suggests, it is all starting to become more personal; but our leaders, especially in the Democratic party (and including a few Republicans) are still oblivious and impermeable to what is happening at home and abroad.

So, if moments of truth and awareness are occasionally breaking through; if "the feelin' is gettin' so intense, that the young Virginia creepers have been huggin' the bejeepers outa all the mornin'-glories on the fence", then things must indeed be coming to a flashpoint. Let us hope that the Messiah who was going to push back the tides and bring hope and change etc etc to the world will have a stark moment of clarity before it is too late for the insight to do much good.

Maybe by June?

[from the musical "Carousel"]

March went out like a lion
A-whippin' up the water in the bay.
Then April cried and stepped aside,
And along came pretty little May!

May was full of promises,
But she didn't keep 'em quick enough for some,
And a crowd of Doubtin' Thomases
Was predictin' that the summer'd never come.

But it's comin', by gum!
Y' ken can feel it come,
Y' ken can feel it in yer heart,
Y' ken can see it in the ground,

Y' ken can see it in the trees,
Y' ken can smell it in the breeze

Look around, look around, look around!

Tuesday, February 15, 2011


I think this is an extremely important point to remember about democracy:
Winston Churchill grabbed the nub of democracy when he said: "It is said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried." We Americans invest far too much hope in the virtue of democracy.

President Bush launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Did he really mean that? His actions seemed to support "Operation Iraqi Democracy." Freedom would mean that the ancient Christian community could practice its faith without terror. Freedom would mean that Kurds, who are not Arabs and who are not all Moslems, could create their own nation. Freedom would mean that the Government of Iraq would melt away as the bazaar rebuilt Iraq into a hive of private enterprise.

The problem with democracy worship is that the "Will of the People" has no special moral authority. The Founding Fathers knew that well. The purpose -- the only true purpose -- of government is to preserve the rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When any government fails in that single moral purpose, it loses all legitimate authority. The Declaration of Independence was not based upon a plebiscite. Indeed, probably a majority of Americans did not support the revolution. No matter: if the goal of liberty could be won best by the rough tool of democracy, then that tool was useful.

Those who want "Power to the People!" never want power to the person. They think like Marxists or Nazis or some other incarnation of wickedness which cannot persuade free people to buy whatever they are selling. From this moral positioning come "People's Courts" run by "People's Prosecutors" which consign untamed consciences and minds to a hateful, dreary gulag. We see this clearly enough when the physical costume is worn by the sadistic thug governing at our notional behest. So when Mubarak leaves, few shed a tear at the closing of official torture chambers.

But we miss the horror of rampant, totalitarian democracy when the channels of thinking and of feeling have been so constrained that nearly "everyone" thinks and feels the same. So when public education and state sponsored academia colludes with other offices of government and officially licensed media to produce a single, superintending ideology with components calculated to compromise constituencies, somehow democracy is said to "work."

I have noticed lately that many people tend to confuse democracy, which can be a very good system of governmnet under certain circumstances; with individual freedom, which is what people all over the world, in every culture and time have fought and died for.

It is not democracy that our Founders so firmly believed in, it is liberty.

Democracy is basically rule by an omnipotent majority. There is nothing in a democracratic form of government which protects individuals, or any group of individuals who happen to be in a minority, against the unlimited power of the majority.

In other words, in a simple democracy, there are no guarantees that the majority will not impose its dictatorial, totalitarian or authoritarian rule over minorities.

There are no guarantees that a majority in a supposedly democratic country, for example, might not vote someday for sharia law.

The system of government we have here in the U.S. is actually a republic which, while democratic, is a system of government that controls the majority to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders considered these rights unalianble, and they formed the basis of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they drafted.

A republic is a constitutionally limited form of democratic government which is created by a written constitution that is adopted by the people and can be formally amended. The powers of this government are formally divided in this constitution between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Many of the Founders were of the strong opinion that these United States should never become a true democracy. Benjamin Frankly famously replied when asked in 1787, by a woman after the the Constitutional Convention, what kind of government had been decided upon: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Even then, they understood how democracy could undermine and eventually negate the very freedoms and ideals they knew must be the foundation of this country.

•Benjamin Rush: "A simple democracy ... is one of the greatest of evils" (1789).

•James Madison: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (1787).

•John Adams: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide" (1814).

In the U.S., the rule of law protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

That is why the act of simply voting in the Middle East is not necessarily any guarantee of liberty for the people. Without the proper constraints, the majorities in countries like Egypt and Iraq can simply democratically vote away the rights of Christians, Jews, women, homosexuals, or any other minority group, at their whim. They can vote for tyrants and dictators and allow them to suspend freedom--like they have in Venezuela. They can vote to bring thugs like Hamas and Hezbollah to power; and impose sharialaw on everyone.

This reality must be understood and the mindless worship of "democracy", which is no guarantee that liberty and freedom for all will prevail, must cease. Unless the power of government, even a "democratically elected" government, is constitutionally limited so that the freedoms of even the smallest minorities (i.e., individuals) are protected from the majority, tyranny is likely the only thing that will prevail.

The real virtue is not democracy, it is--and always has been--individual freedom.

[Political Cartoons by Steve Breen]

Sunday, February 13, 2011


Andrew McCarthy, explaining how a 14 yo girl raped by a relative, died while receiving her mandatory 100 lashes (READ IT ALL, PLEASE):

When I catalogue the horrors of sharia, I frequently hear in response that I am oversimplifying it, that I am relying on incorrect interpretations (oddly said to be inaccurate because they construe Islamic doctrine “too literally”), or that I fail to appreciate the richness and nuances of sharia jurisprudence that have made it possible for moderate Muslims to evolve away from the law’s harshness. Some even claim sharia is not a concrete body of law, just a set of aspirational guidelines — as if Sakineh Ashtiani, the woman sentenced by an Iranian court to death by stoning, will merely be having advice, rather than rocks, thrown at her.

These criticisms miss the point. I don’t purport to have apodictic knowledge of what the “true” Islam holds — or even to know whether there is a single true Islam (as I’ve said a number of times, I doubt that there is). But that’s irrelevant. It should by now be undeniable that there is an interpretation of sharia that affirms all its atrocious elements, and that this interpretation is not a fringe construction. It is mainstream and backed by very influential scholars who know a hell of a lot more about Islam than we in the West do. That makes it extremely unlikely that this interpretation will be marginalized any time soon.

As I have said before, SHARIA ( شريعة ) is a simple black and white issue. You cannot support the vicious humiliation and institutionalized oppression and subjugation of women and then claim that Islam is a religion of "peace"--or, that you are compassionate and champion the oppressed.

McCarthy is absolutely correct in saying that almost all mainstream "scholars" of Islam support such atrocities, and even encourage them.

And then there is the curious attitude of today's neofascist, postmodern and multiculti political left, which is perhaps not so curious when you consider that their goals of detroying Western values and traditions are eerily similar to those of Islam.

I had a recent argument with a so-called "feminist" of my own generation, who claimed that women under Islam actually have it far better than women in the West! We women in the backwards U.S., she contended, actually have to worry about being raped all the time, while women under Islam are protected from this indignity (see McCarthy's article above for clarification on this issue). This imbecile really and sincerely meant what she was saying, too; at which point I sweetly agreed with her and wondered why she chose to live here in the primitive U.S. when she would be so much better off in Iran or under a burka somewhere where she couldn't accidentally inflame the passions of men by her mere existence?

Of course, when you understand that currently influential elements of the political left are completely convinced that every aspect of the West's culture is inferior to any other culture, then you begin to understand why the specter of sharia and 'submission' to the dictates of oppressive Islam loom rather menacingly-- even where individual freedom is valued. This situation is partly motivated by the fear of being attacked or killed if you criticize Islam in any way whatsoever; and probably even more driven by the idiotic doctrine of leftist multiculturalism (which is finally being politically denounced in Europe which has already had to live with its insanity for some years).

As we in the West willingly silence artists, writers and critics of Islam; give Islamic customs special preference in our public schools, gyms and even our public bathrooms; we are only happily paving the way for our own cultural destruction. In truth, we are not simply tolerating Islam's cultural practices, we are suborning our own so as not to give them offense.

Muslim avocacy groups (like CAIR for example) are nothing more than an advance recon units for Al Qaeda-style jihad, disguised as self-righteous and terribly oppressed Muslim 'moderates', who use the cry of "Islamophobia!" as a political strategy to disarm their critics.

Well, if it is Islamophobic to wholeheartedly denounce and condemn a religion and a set of religious laws that could condemn a child for being raped, then count me in. I think it is less phobic and more Islamodisgusted and repulsed at the barbarity.

Those who want to impose sharia and institute a worldwide Islamic caliphate have taken the pulse of the enemy infidels' current crop of leaders, and know that it is weak and irregular.

They must be disabused of the notion that their crusade to obtain special status for Islam under the law has any chance of success.

Islamic front groups have cynically used our most precious freedoms in order to marginalize those freedoms, and they have been getting away with it because of multiculturalism and political correctness. When those two strategies don't work, then the fear and intimidation inevitably kick in. But in Europe and here in the US, there is a growing backlash--particularly when atrocities like the one Mccarthy describes above are widely publicized--and such behavior only succeeds in hardening the resolve of people like myself to actively oppose their coercive and cynical manipulation of our free society.

And to condemn their behavior.

Once upon a time, I could have cared less about Islam and what any Muslim believed or how they lived--as long as they left me alone. Now I have a strange and compelling desire (my "difficulty in dealing with authority", I suppose) to organize groups to "Flush the Quran" and "Mock Mohammed". Blasphemy is not only the right of a free citizen, it is a sacred duty in cases like this; and if a particular religion doesn't like it, they can suck eggs and boohoo into their non-alcoholic beverage of choice.

No religion (or secular group, for that matter) or group of religious leaders steeped in paranoia and ignorance are going to have a free pass to treat human beings like chattal; or to project their own screwed up sexuality and impotent manhood onto 14 year old girls, or women of any age.

All sorts of possible non-PC civil disobedience flash through my mind; because quite frankly, submission has never been one of my personality traits ; nor is it common in the American character.

Islam may find our lack of faith in Allah disturbing, but they have no magical powers to make me or anyone else conform to their religion unless we ourselves give it to them.

It is time to firmly reject sharia and tell the primitive throwbacks who demand us to submit to their medieval ways to take their religious beliefs and religious law an stick them where the sun don't shine.

Screw that. Civilization has come a long way, baby--and sharia and the religion that birthed it suck big time.

As for the leftism and leftists who support, encourage and enable the slow destruction of Western values and freedoms in the name of 'multiculturalism' and 'peace' and all things politically correct--you people already have a lot to answer for; and sometime soon, you will either have to come to terms with the fear and hate that motivates your appeasement; or you will finally have to admit to yourselves that the submission, selflessness and worship of death offered by Islam is the religion you have been searching for all along.

Friday, February 11, 2011


So, according the the DNI, we should be shouting, "Callooh, Callay!" because that awful Muslim Brotherhood, who we thought had jaws that bite and claws that catch, is not a Jabberwock at all! More like a burbling secular pussycat.

No! Wait, says the gyring and gimbling Administration! The Muslim Brotherhood is most likely a Jubjub bird! Or possibly a frumious Bandersnatch?? Well, whichever is the least threatening--that's what it is! And we can work with it, no fear.

Meanwhile, our "beamish boy" final was able to lift that vorpal blade and hath slain the real Jabberwock!

We truly live in a Wonderland! How brillig is that?

[Cartoons by Robert Ariail]

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Thursday, February 10, 2011


Steven Hayward has hit the nail squarely on the head in his predictions about the next big move of the "eco-apocalyptics" now that global warming is entering the dustbin of history:
This story suggests that changes in the earth’s magnetic fields are causing, or will cause, an increase in “super storms.” The initial problem for the eco-apocalytpics here is that it offers an alternative explanation for climate change. But that’s not a bug — it’s a feature. All the eco-apocalyptics need is some semi-plausible way to allege human causation for the erratic magnetic fields. Surely before long we’ll hear some Gore-like figure claim that the world’s growing electricity grid, along with all our artificial metal buildings, airplane flights, and so forth, are “confusing” the planet. It’s even better than greenhouse gases. It will require us to shut down virtually the whole of advanced civilization and return to the 17th century — the Unabomber would love it — because even windmills and solar panels won’t save us.

I once had a patient who discovered a small mass in his neck and was convinced he was dying of Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He was sent to me because the medical doctors had done everything to convince him that the mass was benigh and just a slighly enlarged lymph node. Young and inexperienced as I was at the time, I went to a great deal of trouble to gather up all the many documents of his medical workup and sit down with him and explain the results of each one. "This test shows that there are no malignant cells in the biopsy they did, " I told him, confident that he would be relieved about not having cancer or being near death.

And he was. For about two days. He then presented back again the the ER, this time convinced he had colon cancer because he had diarrhea the day before. He was extremely distressed and tearful that he was again going to die of cancer.

This was the beginning of multiple presentations to many doctors for this poor, young man. No sooner did they convince him that he didn't have one serious illness, he would then eventually show up convinced he had another deadly disease. In fact, the more medical and technical doctors became with him; the more detailed they were in their attempts to explain how he was not dying; that he did not have cancer; that the tests were negative--the more quickly his mind would seize on yet another horrible illness that he didn't have.

His preoccupation with having a deadly disease became more and more bizarre and disconnected from reality with each presentation, until it was clearly only a matter for psychiatrists to deal with. From thinking a lymph node in his neck was Hodgkin's Disease, to believing that aliens had implanted cancer cells in his brain; this patient's delusions were the manifestations of a disintegrating self, desperately trying to keep it together.

This process is something we refer to as a delusional disorder. A delusion is basically a fantasy that is mistaken to be a reality. ( The Greek word for delusion is phantasia). In psychiatry, a delusion is defined as pathological , i.e., the result of an illness--i.e., a biological process of one or another variety; and they are held despite any evidence to the contrary. It may be due to a primary psychiatric disorder (like schizophrenia) or a severe brain disorder (like dementia).

But we all know people who are not "ill"; who do not suffer from schizophrenia or other major psychiatric or medical illnesses; who do not take drugs that alter their brains, but they have delusions nonetheless. In this case, the delusion is more of a firmly held belief, despite all evidence to the contrary. A belief that, for the individual who has it, explains or hides an aspect of reality that otherwise cannot be accepted.

Thus, you can think of the etiology of delusions as being on a spectrum where at one end there are biological factors which cause the brain to malfunction in its perception and analysis of reality; and on the other, the brain is intact but there are psychological processes (e.g., defense mechanisms(unconscious processes) or conscious and willful abdication of one's mind to avoid reality)

<---------DELUSIONAL SPECTRUM --------------------->

We can understand the phenomenon of the eco-apocalyptics of the left as more of a conscious and willful abdication of rationality for the purpose of maintaining the delusion of imminent environmental catastrophe. Like the patient with the delusional disorder I described above, but without the biological etiology, the environmental apocalype envisioned by the left serves an important psychological purpose. It disguises the underlying reality of their desire to have power over other people's lives. They absolutely need the environment to be on the verge of catastrophe; just as they need victims for whom they can champion so that they can keep this image of themselves as being heroic, compassionate, champions of the oprressed (including the oppressed planet). They simply cannot accept that they desire power; that they want to control others; that, from a psychological perspective, they are not much different than any other dictator or authoritarian ruler who sees himself "above" the common masses.

We see this same psychological pathology in academia's bizarre justifications and rationalizations as to why their ranks are practically devoid of conservatives:
....liberals, who are usually quick to assume that underrepresentation represents some form of discrimination--structural or personal--suddenly become, as Haidt notes, fierce critics of the notion that numerical representation means anything. Moreover, they start generating explanations for the disparity that sound suspiciously like some old reactionary explaining that blacks don't really want to go into management because they're much happier without all the responsibility. Conservatives are too stupid to become academics; they aren't open new ideas; they're too aggressive and hierarchical; they don't care about ideas, just money. In other words, it's not our fault that they're not worthy.

The psychotic patient's brain dysfunction can usually be treated. His dysfunction is not usually under his control, unless he is taking substances or drugs to deliberately alter it (and in the latter case, when off the substance an initially normal brain will eventually revert to normal again. If the brain is not normal to begin with, then all bets are off).

The social/psychological delusionist, however, chooses to remain delusional in order to protect their self-image or their hidden motivations or to preserve an ideology that does not work in the real world. They do not want to accept reality and prefer instead to claim their dysfunction is the only reality.

When the facts go against them, the true delusionist will alter the facts. For them it is a psychological necessity.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011


In view of the disgusting pursuit of wealth displayed by the likes of the peerlessly anti-capitalistic Michael Moore (gluttony? avarice?); and the unearned pride (envy? lust? anger?) that Obama displays when he told O'Reilly that he "...didn't raise taxes once!", here is a video that those who tend to side with virtue and truth might enjoy:

(h/t The Corner)

Tuesday, February 08, 2011


The Houston Chronicle headline reads, "Report slams FBI over Fort Hood attack: Massacre was preventable, senators say."

Well, duh.

Everyone is aware of the fact that hindsight is 20/20, but in the case of Major Hasan and all the red flags he hoisted prior to his murderous rampage in the name of Islam, foresight should have been 20/20.

Why wasn't it? The short and simple answer is Political Correctness (one of the four pillars in the socialist revival I've been writing about for years):

The 91 page report is titled A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the US Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. The gist of it is that the FBI and Hasan’s superiors had more than enough information to prevent the shootings and likely would have done so if not for political correctness....

It’s pretty hard to understand how anyone could miss signals that amounted to yelling “Bomb!” in an airport. The report suggests that the real underlying problem was political correctness:
One of the officers who reported Hasan to superiors opined that Hasan was permitted to remain in service because of “political correctness” and ignorance of religious practices. That officer added that he believed that concern about potential discrimination complaints stopped some individuals from challenging Hasan. We are concerned that exactly such worries about “political correctness” inhibited Hasan’s superiors and colleagues who were deeply troubled by his behavior from taking the actions against him that could have prevented the attack at Fort Hood.
This same concern for political correctness likely explains the tremendous gap between Hasan’s actual performance and his official performance reviews...

Read it all; and read the report, too if you have any doubts about whether this terrorist could have been stopped well in advance of his terrorist actions.

The sad reality is that political correctness along with the scourge of leftist multiculturalism are the handmaidens of terrorism. Remember a short time ago when NPR firedJuan Williams?

The Williams firing was a yet another example of the alliance between the political left and the Islamists who want to destroy this country.

The key William's quote (and insight from someone with moderate political views) that led to his firing was this: "I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality."

He was speaking of the left's dismissal of Islam as a problem.

Cliff May wrote on Williams' firing at the time: " NPR most people favor engagement with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — but not with Bill O’Reilly."

When it comes to political correctness and multiculturalism, the aversion to reality is a fairly standard--if not mandatory--practice. That's why Hasan's obvious radicalization and descent into jihad could easily be overlooked and whitewashed by his superiors, who were more concerned with not being labelled as racist or non-PC troglodytes, than they were for doing their job.

In the minds of those brainwashed by PC, Hasan was simply a representative of a "diverse" viewpoint. Good for him! And, how tolerant of us!!

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the politically correct and multiculturally sensitive left becomes more obvious on a daily basis. Just yesterday, David Cameron pronounced the failure of "State" multiculturalism, which has been an utter disaster wherever the left has forced its implementation.

Likewise, the blindness of the military here in the US to someone like Major Hasan has shown how the doctrine of political correctness can be lethal.

Note how perfectly both leftist doctrines enabled--and I would go so far as to say encouraged--radical Islamists in their single-minded pursuit of the destruction of the West. Suicide is painless.

Never forget, that these doctrines are being used by the political left to achieve a "new" leftist utopia--pretty much the same as all those old 20th century leftist/national socialist/communist utopias, except for the little detail that the thugs in charge are likely to be radical Muslims this time around.

If the left understands anything, it is that in order for their ideology and its promised utopia to be born, they must thoroughly destroy America and undermine everything America stands for in the world. Once that has been accomplished, then their way is clear. Of course, they truly believe they will be able to control the Islamist genie they have encouraged, appeased and enabled along the way. That's why they are so nonchalant about terrorism and the threat of Islamic jihad. First, they see themselves on the same side politically; and second, they believe they won't have any trouble stopping the Jihad once they are in power. What's the big deal? They also intend to roll back the rising seas, stop global warming, and heal the planet, after all.

So the answer to the question of whether or not the Ft. Hood massacre could have been prevented is, "OF COURSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN!" --But only if the political left is prevented from continuing to foist their failed, dead-end ideology, hidden under the covers of all those caring and compassionate politically correct and multicultural social programs, on the rest of us.